COMMENTARY by NATALIE M. ROSEN

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

FDR and anti-Semitism revisited. Some criticize FDR for not saving the Jews of Europe. FDR's sins of omission continue to be a problem for me even though he remains one of my most ardent heroes. Nothing, however, is black and white especially in politics. One has to view it, I think, as a balancing act. It is wonderful to be idealistic. Surely in hindsight FDR might have done more for the Jews. When one matures, though, I think, one sees compromise and practicalities must be employed sometimes in order to get half of what one wants. It's nice to be idealistic but it doesn't often work especially in the world of political reality.

Nearly everyone in that era probably fell into the anti-Semitic category. I am not saying it is right but it is the way it was and perhaps even still is to some degree. Recently, transcripts of Truman emerged showing in black and white some explicit anti-Semitic remarks he made BUT he supported the establishment of Israel. Nixon is renown for his anti-Semitism in his private rants but he supported Israel too and probably saved Israel during the Yom Kippur War by supplying it with ammunition. Even Billy Graham needed to apologize for his anti-Semitic remarks he made in a visit to the oval office. That was WASP America since our country's inception.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

A case for change--A political rant: How the upcoming Congressional elections cannot be a slam dunk for the Democrats I will never understand. This Republican Congress by acquiescing to this Bush presidency has presided over the most corrupt and deceitful era the horrors of which will be felt for generations to come. This Republican Administration and Republican Congress have cost thousands of lives and billions in treasure. The catastrophe that is Iraq, to Middle East politics to the debacle of Katrina, our port porousness, dearth of comprehensive border security, environmental policies or lack of them, prohibition of stem cell research, and court packing have led to a murderous, treasonous administration which has lied to the American people and cost us dearly. I have been a lover and student of history all my life but I can never remember being so revolted and frightened by my country than I am at this moment.
Pork belly politics, abound. The giving of outrageously expensive contracts to inept crony companies such as Cheney’s Halliburton, secrete oil meetings with oil magnates, testifying of oil big wigs without having to be under oath (the baseball players had to testify under oath but not the oil executives), dubious contractual procedures awarded not to the lowest bidder but to the biggest Republican contributor and bridges to nowhere in Alaska have been the hallmark of this Republican Congress and administration. This Congress has been fraught with corruption and moneyed thugs. Republicans are supposed to save us money instead they cost us and lined their own pockets. Our deficit is horrendous. We are in hawk to our adversaries and we are hated around the world. We think we are safe? We cannot run a country this way.

The usurpation of power by the executive with the acquiescence of Congress is mind numbing. Wire tapping, imprisonment without charges and spying are the heirlooms of this administration. The lack of oversight of this Congress is staggering. This Republican Congress and Republican president have been the least compromising and the most deceitful I have ever known and perhaps one of the worst administrations that have ever existed in our history. Indictments surrounding Jack Abramoff have been abundant which have involve congressmen such as former Speaker Tom DeLay, Bob Ney and the jailing of Randy Duke Cunningham. More indictments should come or at least should have come.

Bribery and treason have been the rule instead of the exception. It has cost us big money.
Our president is inept, uncurious, does not read, is uncompromising, lies, and nods to the treason that has existed among Cheney, Rove, Armitage and others in his administration. 9/11 happened on no one else’s watch but his and his response was inept. Memos abounded warning him of 9/11 and he did nothing. He took us to war against a country that was not the country which threatened us. He has utterly destabilized the Middle East and worst of all empowered Iran. He did the opposite of what he said he was going to do and so far after five years he has allowed Bin Laden to walk.

This Republican Congress and Republican party which is supposed to bring a culture of life has brought nothing but death and destruction. Unless our president gets Parkisons, cancer, ALS, or paralyzed he does not care one iota about providing those medical advances that could help someone. He along with the Republican controlled Congress have cut spending for rehabilitation of our horrifically wounded servicemen as well. When will the American public wake up? Republicans do NOT I repeat DO NOT care about you. They care about big corporations, the elite, those with millions and billions and care about themselves. They have WASTED our money.

The Democrats SHOULD take Congress decidedly. But, the Republicans, never forget, steal elections. When the president was wired during his second debate that should have told everybody the nature of the man. They will, I am sure, steal elections again.

Bush is as much a Christian as Kim Il Jung. He cares about himself, he cares about his moneyed cronies that put him there. He does not care about the majority of Americans. He simply lets you THINK he does. That phrase I so often hear from Shakespeare (the book I have no doubt Bush has read), “The fault deal Brutus is not in the stars it is in ourselves.” If Republicans keep the Congress then our country is beyond repentance and we have only ourselves to blame. Perhaps we feel so much more secure now that two people of the same gender who love each other cannot make it legal. Or maybe we feel secure that our most horrific diseases will not be cured by a few cells in a petrie dish. Maybe we feel secure that those cells which could have cured us now will be thrown out. Maybe we don’t care about the earth warming and our glaciers melting. Maybe we simply do not care about anything. I think some do care though.

This country is desperate for wise, intelligent, articulate, brilliant leadership and it has none. We need someone who understands history especially of Iraq and the Middle East to sagaciously carve out an intelligent foreign policy. If we had that we would reap the benefit dramatically but we don’t. The people are duped by Republican superficialities.

If there is a God I am sure in some other universe these people will pay for their lies, their cruelties their treason, death and suffering they have inflicted on so many. Until then we need to kick them out of office and fast!

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Diplomacy and force. I do not want to give the erroneous impression that I do not favor diplomacy among nation states to resolve problems. I most decidedly do. However, there is no question that our country must maintain a strong defense because there are those powers, no matter how we conduct ourselves, which would want to attack and ultimately destroy us. It is, I believe, the nature of man.

I also though believe, we must, because we are witness to the utter failure of contemporary US foreign policy, begin anew. We need to change US foreign policy to scrupulously monitor and ever so judiciously employ the use of force. Force should be used exclusively where we are directly and maliciously attacked by a foreign power whether it be a nation state or a rogue group. That would mean that our entrance into Afghanistan, in my opinion, was warranted. Without it costing the US grossly in manpower, money and munitions in Iraq, we could have concentrated entirely on Afghanistan which really was the umbilical cord of terrorism and the nexus for Al-Quaeda. We could have, as we did, remove the Taliban and effect a surgical strike to take out the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri which we have astonishingly yet to do. At the same time we would have been able to monitor strictly the politics and behavior of Iraq. Now, we are quagmired. We are damned if we leave and damned if we don't. I believe as Peter Galbraith I think has suggested, the only avenue left for Iraq would be to divide it into three -- Kurds, Sunni and Shia. The US then should step aside.

If that ever succeeds, there must be an attempt over decades to redo US foreign policy so that we remain strong but gentle. Countries must begin to know we will be there for humanitarian good but if attacked we will respond. It is clear to me that unilaterialism to effect Middle East democracy is a disastrous neo-conservative pipedream and failure. We cannot be the supreme inseminator of democracy throughout the world. Nor should we be.

We need more than a "coalition of the willing." We need nations -- even nations who generally are not on our side -- to be on our side because not to do so would be too disadvantageous. Through economics we can help many. With bombs we help none. The cause in Iraq was not just. It was an error of biblical proportions and we will be paying its price, I think, for generations to come. I believe though we can reverse that error slowly over time so that a new New Deal will emerge not only for our country but for people around the world as well.

If they could they would: I respond to Professor Zinn's Op Ed "War is not a solution for terrorism," in the September 2, 2006 edition of the Globe. Professor Zinn and I have had email exchanges on this issue. He remains one of the most influential professors of history I encountered. I agree, I do not feel safer since 9/11. I, too, shudder to think of how many bombs our country has "inevitably" dropped on innocents in many theaters of war. Professor Zinn, though, still has not answered my inevitable concern. I call it the if they could they would concern. I do not understand how Professor Zinn can view the human species and think that American might is the cause of most of the ills the modern world confronts. What if we were a country which nary dropped a bomb on anyone or developed weaponry to do so? Does Professor Zinn think that either the Soviet Union and its sphere during the Cold War or the violent Arab world today would be passive toward the west? Given the violent proclivities of man and his quest for power, I do not think so. Some bomb throwers, some nefarious nation states or some religious fanatics somewhere if they thought they could they would visit upon the west utter destruction. What would we do then? Diplomacy is wonderful and I'm always an advocate of it when possible but it does nothing if our populous, in the interim, lies on a tarmac of dust.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

The Folly of "Fascism": It is ridiculous to throw around the words Nazism and Fascism. If everyone is a fascist no one is. Nazism and Fascism were very particular historical occurrences at a very particular time in human history. Technically, Fascism relates to a tyrannical partnership between government and corporate economic power. Fascists, economically at least, are major capitalists. The leadership in a Fascist state is, of course, dictatorial. Mussolini, Hitler's mentor, designed the Fascist political movement. Franco, Spain's dictator, joined those ranks. The word comes from the Roman fasces or rods which were bundled around an axe carried by soldiers in ancient Rome. Fascists are generally thought to occupy the extreme right wing of the political spectrum and are ardent foes of Communism on the left. Islamic movements today do not conform to that definition. Perhaps, Mr. Bush, et al meant to say theocracy which would be, I think, a more accurate term for many contemporary Islamic states and movements. I think that would be a word which Mr. Bush and his minions might be better able to understand.

US/Russian nuclear weaponry -- Have two eclairs!

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

What to do about a nuclear Iran. Have an éclair!

Leave it to Beaver Goes to Katrina Land: Could anyone on this planet take seriously Bush's photo-oped, rehearsed and completely orchestrated trip to the land of Katrina? He stood in front of the few houses that were reconstructed and uttered a few platitudes. He is seriously inarticulate, speech/thought disordered and he is our president. Does he really think we believe that he read Camus or even Shakespeare? I did not hear someone ask him what these books were about. Like the issues of his presidency, I have no doubt he does not have a clue about them just as he has no clue about the devastation that was and is Katrina. He has read Camus and four books of Shakepeare like I have read the sequel to "My Pet Goat!"

Maureen Dowd's NYT article Aug. 30 entitled "Begat, Bothered and Bewildered" was Biblicalesque about Bush's return trip to the still devastated area of Katrina. As usual, Maureen Dowd writings are brilliant, satiric and sad. Regarding Bush's pathetic photo-oped, rehearsed roll -- or role -- down the memory lane of Katrina in New Orleans and Mississippi yesterday: it's a little too late to, as Ms. Dowd puts it, "restore the soul to the White House." It's long since gone forever. Every sin he and his minions has committed is upon us all. His deeds are done and now we have to reap what he sowed!

Sunday, August 27, 2006

A new New Deal: Interesting article by Andrew J. Bacevich entitled "No Win" in the Sunday, August 27, 2006 Globe. It is clear to me too, at least presently, that our military strategies have not been working. It is costing us dearly in lives, treasure, and prestige around the world. There is no end in sight.

There needs to be a new New Deal where those in power must be able to think about substantive policy changes to live with a new Middle East. To do this Americans must effect a systemic change in government by electing those who are capable of doing many of the things that Professor Bacevich suggests. Our people must see that the majority of their interests are not served by powers that owe their platforms to huge amounts of corporate money and who have a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo ensuring it will be in place for decades to come. His most salient point, in my opinion, was developing alternative sources of energy thereby reducing our strategic presence in the Middle East.

This is certainly not what the large corporate oil interests want. Those large corporate oil interests are embedded within a Republican party that nearly exclusively caters to them. That party is entrenched in the House, the Senate, the Executive and Judicial branches. Our people have been duped into electing those who do not do things to help us and, indeed, have incalculably hurt us. Those now in power must be removed, post haste. Nothing less than our security and our very lives depend on it.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Thinking Anew -- I watched CNN’s Christiana Amanpour's "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden," a history of Bin Laden from engineer in his father's construction company to terrorist premier and the manufacturer of 9/11.

A terrorist she interviewed said that they struck the US because of what the US and the west have done to Arabs. He said that the 3000 killed on 9/11 were nothing compared to how many the US has killed and what the US has perpetrated in the Middle East. He said the Koran says that killing is wrong but if another threatens you first then it is permissible to kill them. Despicable as I thought he was, I endured the diatribe.

As I see it every side thinks their enemy has threatened them first so they retaliate. So who threatened who first? Unfortunately, one cannot escape the boundaries of where one sits to answer that objectively. Howard Zinn, a left-wing historian, says “The old ways are not working, we need new ways of thinking.” Zinn says too that wars and bombs have not given us security. Perhaps he is right.

I cannot love my enemy, but unless we want to give future generations a world of perpetual war or worse no world at all, we must, I think, at the very least, talk to our enemy and think of new ways to deal with our adversaries. Maybe it does not matter anymore who started what first. No one will agree on that. To save us all, maybe it matters more who will speak to whom first and when.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

How 9/11 Changed Bush a response: Michael Gerson wrote a wonderfully articulate and poignant article in Newsweek entitled "How 9/11 Changed Bush". The problem with it, I think, is that no one has a crystal ball. That is what I need to figure out if Gerson's assessment of Bush's war on terror since 9/11 is correct. I simply do not know. I see his point. We will not inherit the earth if Islamic terrorists win. According to Gerson, who knew the Chief Executive rather personally, Bush took us to war to spread democracy and stop Islamic totalitarian dictatorships.

The question to me becomes: is the violence that is this war the answer? If it is by bombing jihadists into submission, it doesn't seem to be working. The people who get bombed and their loved ones killed do not seem to see the rationale behind the bombing, maiming and killing of their people. As one who supported in its infancy Bush's Iraq war, it sadly seems to have gotten him and us exactly the opposite of what he/we wished if we are to believe what Michael Gerson says.

I take some exception to Laura Rozen's op ed piece in the Sunday, August 13, 2006 Globe entitled "Islamic radical groups are not all alike." While I do not dispute there are some differences at this moment between Hezbollah and Al Qaeda both these groups call for the destruction of the State of Israel. If they call for the destruction of the State of Israel you can be sure they hold no special place in their hearts for the US and our allies. Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are violent entities which will morph into whatever political position is necessary to achieve their ends. The editorialist, I think, gives the erroneous impression that because of some present political differences between Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, one does not pose a threat to the United States at this time. I submit all Islamic radicals who call for the destruction of Israel and the Jews would not think twice about murdering anyone (including fellow Muslims) if they thought the time was right and it was advantageous to their cause. No matter which Islamic radical group you name, none is benign to the US. We are at all times in their cross-hairs and they would kill us with impunity anytime it is expedient for them to do so.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Spinoza revisited: A response to a letter to the editor of the Globe

With all due respect to Rev. Joseph M. Hennessey's critique of the great Jewish philosopher Spinoza in his letter to the editor July 31, 2006, I believe Rev. Hennessey is in significant error. Among others, Spinoza ushered in the 17th century ideas of the Age of Reason. It is said he "prepared the way for the 18th century Enlightenment." Rev. Hennessey's criticism claimed that Spinoza was responsible for the undermining of religion and indeed he even unbelievably says he can see why Islamic Fundamentalists "do not wish this same poison to infect their faith-filled world." Emphatically, it is certainly not reason or the Enlightenment (profoundly influencing our Founding Fathers and the construction of our own Constitution) which is at fault for worldly chaos. Rather, it is man's inability to escape the shackles of irrational religious superstition and intolerance which has sentenced mankind to a life of perpetual conflict. Religion for thousands of years has been at the root of bestial barbaric killings everywhere. If more people understood Spinoza and developed more rational thought, think how many lives would have been saved. Really, Rev. Hennessey, look to fundamentalist religious orthodoxy for the cause of the instability and horror of the world. The elders of Spinoza's community who eschewed and excommunicated him did not know him at all. Their ostracism of him was, in my opinion, a stain on all mankind. The fault dear Rev. Hennessey is not in Spinoza it is in uncompromising and irrational religious beliefs.

Uniterally Alone: I have been so disappointed so often that I simply do not have any enthusiasm for politics any more. When I think of what I experienced in the sixties and who has assumed leadership in this country since then, I wonder what happened. What became of all the hope I had during those times? I suppose the answer lies in part, through assassination we lost great leaders before their time. JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King, I believe, would have achieved more greatness had they lived. They were hugely important leaders with more progressive political agendas. JFK could have won another term and I believe the quagmire and eventual loss of Vietnam never would have occurred. RFK could have assumed the presidency as well. Insted paranoid Nixon, and then the mediocrities of Reagan, H.W. Bush, and now the worst blunderer of epic proportions George Bush assumed the presidency. Those leaders implemented and implement, in my opinion, despicable policies that dupe the American public and support generally the wealthy. They made everyone else irrelevant and have, I believe, been responsible for our country's descent into madness. It is surely not the nation I thought, as a young adult, it was.

Now those mad forces control everything -- the presidency, the Congress, the courts and in many ways even the press. The US is divided worse than ever before. If that isn't bad enough, I believe, the Republicans control the voting machines. The elections, especially, are, I am convinced, fixed. The fix is in for generations and the Democratic party has been rendered impotent. The Democratic party appears weak and not united. Something must be done to reverse this perception of Democrats and fast because, in fact, I believe the Democratic party, while not perfect, is the best opportunity the majority of the people in this country have for a more positive change of direction.

I fear I will never live to see a country which again cares for its poor and dispossessed, conducts a sane and intelligent international foreign policy and provides hope for millions. It now is a country that conducts inane never-ending wars based on lies, kills thousands, alienates people around the globe, ruins the world's environment, shreds our magnificent Constitution, creates a theocracy, does not believe in science or academics, raises our national deficit, makes wealthy people wealthier and "elects" an uncurious president who cannot read nor speak well extemporaneously. Without a teleprompter our president is verbally and grammatically inept and, ashamedly, most around the globe know it.

Presently, especially, we must rely on the Warren Buffets and Bill Gates of the world not our US government to make humanity its priority. It is obvious if we rely on our own government to provide help we will get Katrina-like assistance. It is clear if leadership in the House, the Senate and the Executive does not change we will be and currently are in this alone.

Solutions to the Middle East: I try to be a rational person. I try to look at both sides of the issues; many sides of the issues. I will admit to a side that wants revenge but I also have a side that looks for more sagacious ways out. This requires much understanding, knowledge of all history and most especially Middle East history. It requires us to ask the question why is this happening. The revenge side of me thinks, as some people on this blog do, that force is the only way; that no matter if there were no Jews in Israel, if there were no Israel, if we did not need oil, if those in the west were nowhere to be found in the Middle East, I suspect the Middle East would still be explosive. I think to a degree nothing in the long run will matter because this radical brand of Islam, this kind of quasi Marxist ends-justifies-the-means kind of Islam has grabbed on to a population that does not and will not let it go. Man Western or Middle Eastern can be a violent beast that we know. I would love to find the better angels of our nature, if that is even indeed possible, in these perilous times. I would rather the Middle East be turned into a progressive flourishing oasis rather than into a parking lot as some would advocate. This will take a Solomon-like effort. So far I see no Solomons on the horizon. I am trusting that amid six billion people on this planet there must be one!

Bill Moyers Faith and Reason: Recently, I had the wonderful opportunity to view two of Bill Moyer's interviews on his PBS show called "Faith and Reason." One interview was of Jeanette Winterson who, I believe, has written much and who as it says on the PBS web site "Winterson's works explore themes of desire, fantasy, sexuality, feminism, gender identification, love, and power in lyrical and imaginative prose, frequently mixing myth and history in settings ranging from 17th-century England to cyberspace."

I emailed Ms. Winterson and said the following:

Your quote shown on the PBS web site said:

"More than sex. More than money. You know, life is not endless is it? Cash, cars, cocaine, and girls. It's more than that. And there is a spiritual dimension to people...we are driven to want something more."